Smaller Arms in the Battlespace – Who Genuinely Has the Benefit?

There was after a quite exciting statement produced by a now well-liked military historian and thinker. He served as a common in the Italian army in the 1920s and his name was Giulio Douhet.

He created a statement that any new advancement in guns, and specifically he was talking soldier carried compact arms provides the advantage to the army that is defending and not the a single aggressing. That is to say quicker fast firing ability or accuracy, offering both sides have the exact same technology gives the advantage to the entrenched position defending.

Okay so, if you would like to recognize my references herein, I’d like to cite the following perform: “The Command of the Air” by Giulio Douhet, which was published with University of Alabama Press, (2009), which you can obtain on Amazon ISBN: 978–8173-5608-8 and it is based and basically re-printed from Giulio Douhet’s 1929 function. Now then, on 224 valkyrie ammo attempts to talk about absolutes, and he states

“The truth is that each development or improvement in firearms favors the defensive.”

Nicely, that is intriguing, and I searched my thoughts to attempt to come up with a for instance that would refute this claim, which I had difficulty performing, and if you say a flame thrower, well that’s not truly regarded a fire-arm is it? Okay so, I ask the following questions:

A.) Does this warfare principle of his hold true right now as well? If both sides have the identical weapons, “compact firearms” then does the defensive position usually have the advantage, due to the ability to stay in position without having the challenge of forward advancement? Would you say this principal could be moved from a “theory of warfare” to an actual “law” of the battlefield, soon after years of history?

B.) If we add in – rapidly moving and/or armored platforms to the equation would the offense with the very same fire-arm capability commence to have the advantage – such as the USMC on ATVs which are really really hard to hit. Or in the case of an armored vehicle, it is a defensive-offensive platform in and of itself. For that reason, would the author be correct, as the offense is a defense in and of itself anyway?

Are you beginning to see the value in this Douhet’s observation as it relates to advances in technologies on the battlefield? Certainly, I believed you might, and thus, I sincerely hope that you will please look at it and assume on it, see if you can come up with an instance exactly where that rule would not be applicable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *